A baby girl is in process of being born right now. Her mother (my daughter) has been laboring all day since early this morning. Thought she'd be here by now, but not yet.

NR will remind you all how I said personally, at viability, I believe it's a baby. Factually, in utero, it's still a fetus, but my personal opinion is it's a baby. I have posted this a bazillion times, but put it out there again for you, BA.

<quoted text>I've never argued "psychiatric" reasons should not be considered as mental health, but "psychiatric" and "emotional" can be two very different things. Again, you are trying to portray what my views are from your simplistic generalization of those that dont agree with you. And BTW, I'm tired of arguments from you liberals that say "if the government can regulate abortion than that is the first step in the government forcing abortion", while you idiots support the government taking over the health care industry. What better reason could the government have to force abortion than to cut their cost on health care and support?

Um, the countries with socialized medicine do not force abortion. There may be zero restrictions, but this is not the same as forcing. Please provide just one example of forced abortion where socialized medicine is practiced.

<quoted text>OMG! You are as bad as NR with an inability to separate personal from factual. Here's a reality check for you.

LOL, Condescending Katie has been scorned, OK, show me where I was wrong about your views, let's go.

Katie wrote:

"This from someone who argued for partial birth abortion?"There is no "partial birth abortion". There was the D&X procedure which was safer for the woman AND allowed her a whole baby to hold and grieve.

"Partial Birth Abortion" was a term used to describe the D&X procedure which allowed the doctor to partially deliver the fetus, feet first, and then sucked the brain from the fetus. This also prevented the question of "person-hood" since the fetus was not a technically "born human". Congress and the over whelming majority of Americans supported the ban on this inhumane procedure, especially since there were other options.So, as I said, you argued against the ban on "partial birth abortions (D&X Procedure).

Katie wrote:

"The same person who contends that a born baby is not "born" until the cord is cut?"I claimed the birth process separating fetus from baby included cutting the cord and baby breathing.

Well Katie, since the discussion here is about abortion, and when constitutional rights apply, how is a born baby with the cord attached not born and worthy of constitutional rights? Or is this just an extention of your support of "partial birth abortions"?

Katie wrote:

"And you've also argued that "emotional health" ( a woman not being able to deal emotionally with the fact that she is pregnant, such as too fat, not being able to go out with friends, or just not feeling attractive anymore) is a legitimate reason to abort a viable fetus!"I just rewrote that old argument and it sure didn't look like what you wrote above. You don't give psych patients (such as schizophrenics) the seriousness deserved when you compare it with "too fat" or "not being able to go out". But you sure just verified my prior post. Thanks much!

WTF? Are you lost? I dont give women having a temporary "emotional" crisis the same wieght as I do a phychiartic pataint. Again, it's your total disregard for the fetus that doesnt allow you to differentiate between the two, and which is a justified reason to terminate a "viable" fetus.

Katie wrote:

"Come on Katie, your arguments are about the woman with no regard for the fetus at any point."Yeah, there's a woman wrapped around that uterus holding an embryo/fetus. A woman seemingly forgotten by you and others like-minded. SHE has an established life, SHE has civil rights. I do not disregard the embryo/fetus, as you try to claim, but I realize if somebody else's pregnancy is unwanted, unhealthy, or potentially fatal, I have absolutely no say-so in their decisions regarding it. None. And if it was me, I wouldn't want anyone else (you, JM, Ink, Sue, NR, etc.) to make the decision for me, either.

Well, now you're babbling, I agree there are considerations that puts the woman's rights and considerations above the fetuses, I havent said differently. I just dont agree that a woman has an absolute right to kill a viable fetus without a justified, and very compelling reason.To sum it up, you agree that you are in support of partial birth abortion, and that a baby isnt a baby, even after being born, until the cord is cut, and you also stand that a woman that is having a tempory emotional crisis, such as being too fat and unattractive, has just as much right to abort a viable fetus as a clinically dianiosed phycotic patient. So, where is your problem? I describe your views perfectly.

<quoted text>"Why dont you just admit that you think abortion is 100% about the woman's concerns and desires until the cord is cut? Seriously, if that is how you feel why mask it?"Because it's not what I believe. I've been very clear and concise. There are exceptions. Even after viability. I may not agree with these, I may not like these, but there is a small need. Something like .03% if I'm remembering right.You see what you want to see, BA.

OK, Katie, so tell me when a woman's "right" to abort should not super cede protection of the fetus/the State's interest to protect life.

<quoted text>Um, the countries with socialized medicine do not force abortion. There may be zero restrictions, but this is not the same as forcing. Please provide just one example of forced abortion where socialized medicine is practiced.

Really, China is a socialist nation, have you heard about it's restrictions on child birth?

My alarm goes off in a couple hours. I have to get a nap in.A baby girl is in process of being born right now. Her mother (my daughter) has been laboring all day since early this morning. Thought she'd be here by now, but not yet..

Congratulations Katie, best wishes for you and yours.

Katie wrote:

NR will remind you all how I said personally, at viability, I believe it's a baby. Factually, in utero, it's still a fetus, but my personal opinion is it's a baby. I have posted this a bazillion times, but put it out there again for you, BA.G'night.

But you've argued against restriction on the woman to abort until the cord is cut, sorry, but I just dont see it that way. G'night Katie, and again, best wishes.

<quoted text>OMG! You are as bad as NR with an inability to separate personal from factual. Here's a reality check for you.====="This from someone who argued for partial birth abortion?"There is no "partial birth abortion". There was the D&X procedure which was safer for the woman AND allowed her a whole baby to hold and grieve.====="The same person who contends that a born baby is not "born" until the cord is cut?"I claimed the birth process separating fetus from baby included cutting the cord and baby breathing.====="And you've also argued that "emotional health" ( a woman not being able to deal emotionally with the fact that she is pregnant, such as too fat, not being able to go out with friends, or just not feeling attractive anymore) is a legitimate reason to abort a viable fetus!"I just rewrote that old argument and it sure didn't look like what you wrote above. You don't give psych patients (such as schizophrenics) the seriousness deserved when you compare it with "too fat" or "not being able to go out". But you sure just verified my prior post. Thanks much!====="Come on Katie, your arguments are about the woman with no regard for the fetus at any point."Yeah, there's a woman wrapped around that uterus holding an embryo/fetus. A woman seemingly forgotten by you and others like-minded. SHE has an established life, SHE has civil rights. I do not disregard the embryo/fetus, as you try to claim, but I realize if somebody else's pregnancy is unwanted, unhealthy, or potentially fatal, I have absolutely no say-so in their decisions regarding it. None. And if it was me, I wouldn't want anyone else (you, JM, Ink, Sue, NR, etc.) to make the decision for me, either.

Anyone that has a uterous just to have a place to kill innocent people should not be allowed to have a uterus. Any homicidal tyrant could just as easily have their uterous removed as kill the people they put in their uterus.

<quoted text>Abortion affects the people killed with abortion. Abortion makes the people killed with abortion dead. The people killed with abortion are among "us", untill they are killed with abortion. Than the people killed with abortion are no longer among "us", because they were killed with an abortion. Which directly affects who "us" are. Killing some of "us" affects "us", because killing some of "us" makes some of "us" dead. Which changes who "us" are into less of "us". Anyone can be killed at any age without anyone but the killer knowing about it. Which doesn't justify killing anyone.

Yup, you're still nutzo. How you feel about it doesn't matter one iota. As always.

<quoted text>Abortion affects the people killed with abortion. Abortion makes the people killed with abortion dead. The people killed with abortion are among "us", untill they are killed with abortion. Than the people killed with abortion are no longer among "us", because they were killed with an abortion. Which directly affects who "us" are. Killing some of "us" affects "us", because killing some of "us" makes some of "us" dead. Which changes who "us" are into less of "us". Anyone can be killed at any age without anyone but the killer knowing about it. Which doesn't justify killing anyone.

You're an idiot. There are not "people killed with abortion" unless it women that are gestating that are murdered.

<quoted text>My gosh!! You're assuming women are so fucki%$ dumb and totally stupid to the fact that they may be pregnant even up to the late stages? Your control fetish is in high gear and you're using all the stupid shi7 you csn come up with to try to convince people you know what the he77 you're talking about. Seek help for your control addiction before it consumes you!

What SASSY doesn't get at all is that there are a lot of choices to make every day, not just 2; abort or don't abort. A woman who gets past 8 months of pregnancy without even knowing she is pregnant had made choices to ignore signs like lack of menses, many bodily changes, symptoms like fatigue, back pains, cramping, weight gain, etc. It was the decisions to ignore the signs and not seek any answers that lead to a woman being "forced" to endure an unwanted pregnancy and be "forced" to give birth. No laws or "restrictions" did that, but rather her own actions, or inactions.

There is still always the reality of personal responsibility/accountability. People have to take charge of their own lives and not always blame the laws, the Government or other people for their demise.

<quoted text>What? This from someone who argued for partial birth abortion? The same person who contends that a born baby is not "born" until the cord is cut? And you've also argued that "emotional health" ( a woman not being able to deal emotionally with the fact that she is pregnant, such as too fat, not being able to go out with friends, or just not feeling attractive anymore) is a legitimate reason to abort a viable fetus! Come on Katie, your arguments are about the woman with no regard for the fetus at any point.

Do you have any links to credible (not anecdotal, or biased, for example) sites that provide evidence that women abort post-viable fetuses due to their not wanting to "be fat," or due to the pregnancy's impact on their attractiveness and/or social life, by any chance, BA?

<quoted text>Factually human rights are naturally endowed. Meaning humans have human rights simply because they are human. Birth has nothing to do with our being human, we are just as human before being born as after. Granting rights to cows and pigs simply because the are born, while denying the rights of people simply because they are yet to be born, is sheer lunacy.

I have to disagree...rights are a man-made concept. They don't occur naturally. That is to say, we don't find rights occurring in nature. You even inferred that yourself with the phrase "granting rights..."

My alarm goes off in a couple hours. I have to get a nap in.A baby girl is in process of being born right now. Her mother (my daughter) has been laboring all day since early this morning. Thought she'd be here by now, but not yet.NR will remind you all how I said personally, at viability, I believe it's a baby. Factually, in utero, it's still a fetus, but my personal opinion is it's a baby. I have posted this a bazillion times, but put it out there again for you, BA.G'night.

<quoted text>Anyone that has a uterous just to have a place to kill innocent people should not be allowed to have a uterus. Any homicidal tyrant could just as easily have their uterous removed as kill the people they put in their uterus.

My alarm goes off in a couple hours. I have to get a nap in.A baby girl is in process of being born right now. Her mother (my daughter) has been laboring all day since early this morning. Thought she'd be here by now, but not yet.NR will remind you all how I said personally, at viability, I believe it's a baby. Factually, in utero, it's still a fetus, but my personal opinion is it's a baby. I have posted this a bazillion times, but put it out there again for you, BA.G'night.

Congrats and good luck!

And I agree with you...many of these fundies think we just love love love abortion, which is not true at all.

As an example, I hate alcohol (liquor) with a passion but it's still legal, it'll always be legal, and I don't work against other people's right to have and drink liquor. If I was on some thread arguing for people's freedom to choose to drink liquor beverages these fundies would insist I'm a drunk, even though I do not drink. And they would stupidly conclude that I'm a drunk just because I stand up for other people's freedom to choose for themselves what they want to do, which in that case would be drinking liquor.

<quoted text>Okay. So again, be specific as to why? I said "Not when its in utero prior to viability its not. Its a personal, medical decision that wont have ANY affect on you or me in ANY way."Why do you think YOU should have a say in the medical decision a woman who you dont know, who you never met, WILL never meet, who's life affects you in NO way, who's medical decision will not affect you in ANY way?Somewhere in Texas this morning a woman that netiher you nor I will ever meet had an abortion. How exactly do you feel that affected or WILL affect you?Know I'm being serious and respectful with asking this. I know you and some others really believe what you're saying, and this is something I dont understand.

With all due respect, there are many things that don't affect me directly, but I still feel compelled to to work to eliminate them. Sometimes it's done through my vote, sometimes it's done through more active participation. For example, someone dying from hunger in Africa. I will never KNOW them, but should I consider their death so unimportant that I do nothing? What about the babies and women that died in Gosnell's "clinic", I never KNEW them either. Should I ignore that disgusting example of abuse and do nothing to try to prevent that from happening again? I know that you don't consider the unborn as "people", and by law they are not, but they are human lives and as far as I'm concerned all human life should be protected.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.